MR H TUNNEY AND THE THORNLEY MEETING The Northern Echo 3/11/33

The Case for the Miners’ Lodge.

LETTER PROM PARTY HEADQUARTERS

'Last night's meeting was not in the interests of the Labour Party,' said Mr Hubert Tunney, chairman of Thornley Miners’ Lodge, to a Northern Echo representative yesterday. He was alluding to the meeting held at Thornley Miners' Welfare Hall on Tuesday night convened by Thornley County Council Area Labour Group, at which the public were invited to "Come and hear the Labour Party's case in reply to Thornley Miners' Lodge."

'If there are any differences between the affiliated sections of the Labour Party, machinery is provided to settle these,' continued Mr Tunney.

'In the Northern Echo on 26 October, there was a report of an interview with Mr Charles Frampton, secretary of Thornley Council Labour Group, in which he is reported to have said that the meeting on Tuesday night would be to state the case for the Labour Group and to reply to statements made by Mr Hubert Tunney, in an interview which appeared on Monday, 18 October.

AFFILIATION FEES

'They have already replied on more than one occasion through the special correspondent of The Northern Echo, and, despite the denial of Mr Peart, the opinion is generally held that the special correspondent of The Northern Echo is a prominent member of the Labour Party in this district who is using the capitalist press to discredit the Thornley Lodge and its chairman and who would, no doubt, use the Labour Party platform to denounce the capitalist press if it so pleased him.

'The opinion is further generally held that that the special correspondent has made so many deliberate mis-statements that have been officially denied, that the Northern Echo no longer trusts his reports and is now relying on its own staff.

'Thornley Lodge is not owing anything to to the County Council Area Party. We have paid our affiliation fees for 1932 and those for 1933 are not due until December. And we arranged a special meeting of the Miners' Lodge for December in order to consider this whole question and to be in time to pay the affiliation fee if the Lodge so decided in December next, which would have been quite in time for the election, which is not due until March of next year.

'Surely the Area Party is not waiting for affiliation fees Thornley Miners' Lodge amounting to a matter of £10, when we know that they have enough funds in hand to commence the campaign?

'One would think by all the fuss that Thornley Miners' Lodge had left the Labour Party. That is not so. Thornley Miners' Lodge still belong to the Seaham Division Labour Party and the Thornley Branch Labour Party, and have paid their affiliation fees to these bodies during the last fortnight and have always been up to date. Mr Peart happens to be Secretary of the Seaham Division Labour Party and knows this. The County Council Area Party are not officially connected with the Seaham Division Labour Party.

'This dispute was referred to the National Labour Party Headquarters for decision in July last. Mr Peart is reported to have stated at the meeting on Tuesday that the Labour Party Headquarters had confirmed the Area Party's decision. Let me quote a letter from the National Labour Party Headquarters dated July, which states:

"I would point out that the rules of the Deaf Hill, Thornley, Wheatley Hill and Wingate County Council Area Labour Party (commonly called the Thornley Area) are not in accord with the rules of the Party, as passed by Conference and we would suggest that immediate steps be taken in consultation with Mr Lewcock, our North-Eastern district organiser, to have the rules drafted in accordance with the model rules of the Party."

NEXT PAGE of article transcript.